The invention relates generally to protective equipment such as helmets, guards, and padding that dissipate force (collectively, the “apparatus”). The apparatus can be implemented in helmet embodiments (the “helmet apparatus” or simply the “helmet”) as well as a variety of non-helmet embodiments such as wearable padding embodiments, equipment embodiments, and structural embodiments.
The issue of concussions is a growing concern for football players at all levels of play. A Google search on the terms “concussion” and “football” generates more than 6.5 million hits. Concerned parents are increasingly reluctant to let their kids play football. On the other end of the continuum, the National Football League (“NFL”) was sued for $2.5 B for allegedly hiding known risks pertaining to concussions and other brain-related injuries. From local pewee football leagues to the economic juggernaut of the NFL, the objective of protecting the heads and brains of the players is a prominent and growing concern.
One fundamental problem with football helmets is that they address the wrong problem. Modern football helmets are designed to prevent skull fractures, not concussions. Thus, there is very little “give” in a modern football helmet. As a result, modern football helmet can actually make it more likely that a player suffers a concussion. This is particularly true when the opposing players use their own helmet as the tip of the spear in a violent hit.
The modern football helmet grew out of the military equipment of World War II. The first plastic helmet was experimented with in 1939. According to the http://www.riddell.com website, General Patton saw the new football helmet design and requested examples of it to evaluate as a possible tanker's helmet.
The tradeoffs between preventing skull fractures and preventing concussions can exist outside the context of football and military helmets. Sports such as hockey, polo, horseback riding, lacrosse, baseball, cricket, cycling, climbing, bobsledding, fencing, and amateur boxing often utilize helmets. Helmets are also often used in the working world by firemen, construction workers, miners, police officers, and other occupations.
Analogous tradeoffs can often be found in the context of non-helmet embodiments such as: (1) other articles of clothing (collectively, “wearable padding embodiments”); (2) industrial, exercise, and other types of equipment (collectively, “equipment embodiments”); and (3) permanent surfaces such as floors, walls, athletic fields, and playground surfaces (collectively, “surface embodiments”).
There are many contexts where force dissipation is desirable. It would be desirable for a helmet as well as other protective apparatuses to be designed to better dissipate the force applied to the external surface of the apparatus. In the context of a helmet, such functionality could help wearers avoid concussions. In the context of non-helmet embodiments, such as other wearable embodiments, human beings can be better protected from non-head injuries. In the context of non-wearable embodiments, people as well as property can be protected by equipment embodiments and surface embodiments.